Reconcile with Indigenous peoples. Make elections fairer. Invest many more billions in public transit and green infrastructure. Take climate change seriously.

Those are just a few of the things that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party committed to in the lead-up to the 2015 election, offering up a fairly stark contrast to the decade of reign by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. And on Oct. 19, 2015, almost seven million Canadians voted for that Liberal platform. In his victory speech, Trudeau spoke of “real change” and “sunny ways” and “positive politics.”

Fast forward almost 500 days.

Many major promises have been broken, and sentiments seemingly abandoned. Frankly, it’s getting rather difficult to keep up with the amount of backtracking and shapeshifting happening in Ottawa.

Most recently, Trudeau formally abandoned his repeated commitment that “2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system” by issuing a mandate letter to the new minister of democratic reform that included the statement that “changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate."

What follows is a breakdown of some of the other stunning reversals made by Trudeau and the Liberals in recent months, with a specific focus on commitments made to climate change, environment and Indigenous rights.

Modernizing Environment Assessment Processes Prior to Approving New Pipelines

In 2012, Harper and the Conservatives overhauled the way that major resource projects are assessed in Canada, gutting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Among many other things, those changes resulted in the National Energy Board (NEB) being assigned exclusive responsibility to conduct federal environmental assessments for major pipeline projects.

It’s something that many voiced serious concern about: the NEB has been often accused of being a “captured regulator,” with a high concentration of staff members having worked in the oil and gas industry due to its head office being located in Calgary and legislation from the early 1990s requiring all permanent members to live in the area.

The Liberals pledged in its platform to “make environmental assessments credible again” and “ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest.”

And in August 2015, during a campaign stop in Esquimalt, Trudeau specifically stated the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain project wouldn’t proceed under existing processes.

The list of criticisms of the NEB review of the Kinder Morgan project is long: there was an absence of oral cross-examination of evidence, many people were arbitrarily denied intervenor status and potential climate impacts of the project weren’t considered.

Dozens of municipalities and Indigenous communities voiced serious opposition to the project.

But the Liberals didn’t call the review off. Instead, it created an ad-hoc environmental review panel, which was explicitly intended “to ‘complement’ rather than review or redo the NEB process.” Despite allegations of serious conflict of interest in its members, the panel produced a report posing six major questions about the proposed project that should be answered before making a verdict.

But none of those questions were answered.

As a result, the cabinet decision made on Dec. 29 to approve Trans Mountain and Enbridge’s Line 3 was ultimately based on an NEB recommendation made under Harper-era processes (the B.C. government also oddly accepted the flawed environmental assessment as its own, despite having the opportunity to order its own).

The path forward was clear: modernize the NEB, and repair the trio of acts that were gutted by Harper in 2012 prior to proceeding with new projects that will have major impacts on climate and local environment. Maybe that would have been just too “positive.”

Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Between 2013 and 2015, oil and gas producers in Canada received an annual average of $3.31 billion in subsidies, with $1 billion via the Canadian Development Expense and $1.2 billion from Alberta's Crown Royalty Reductions. This arguably makes the impacts of climate policies less effective.

That’s possibly why the Liberals pledged: “We will fulfill our G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term.”

No further details were given about what “medium-term” means in the context of a four-year mandate.

In November 2015, B.C. Premier Christy Clark announced that the Liberals had assured they would be maintaining Harper’s tax breaks of $50-million over five years to the province’s struggling liquified natural gas (LNG) sector. In March 2016, Carr said it’s “not the moment” to phase out subsidies.

An August 2016 report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development noted: “So far, the government has been quiet about the details of its plan. As part of its G20 commitment, Canada has said that it will eliminate “inefficient” subsidies. But that hasn’t been clarified—nobody knows which subsidies will or won’t be considered inefficient.”

That’s still the case.

Grant Indigenous Nations “Veto” Power Over Resource Projects

One of the most compelling elements of Trudeau’s pre-election rhetoric was his repeated emphasis on establishing a “nation-to-nation” relationship with Indigenous peoples, and working towards the lofty goal of “reconciliation.”

Specifically, the Liberals pledged to "enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

It was also a significant pledge, given that Article 32 of the UN Declaration (which is commonly referred to as UNDRIP) stated “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources” and require states to obtain “free, prior and informed consent” from Indigenous peoples “prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories.”

Many people interpret that article as acknowledging the “veto” power of Indigenous nations, meaning they could refuse projects including pipelines, oil and gas extraction and mineral mining. And when asked on the campaign trail if “no means no” in reference to veto power, Trudeau said “absolutely.”

After winning the election, Trudeau emphasized in mandate letters to ministers that “no relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples.” In May 2016, Canada formally removed its objector status to UNDRIP, with Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett stating: “We intend nothing less than to adopt and implement the declaration in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.”

That was about as clear as you could get. Or so you would think.

Less than two months later, Bennett said the Liberals “do not believe this is an outright veto.” Then Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould stated that implementing UNDRIP was “unworkable.” Trudeau rounded out the betrayals by stating in December 2016 that “no, they don’t have a veto” in reference to three Indigenous nations who vehemently oppose the Kinder Morgan project.

The Liberals have also been criticized for approving the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal, Site C dam and the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline without the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples. In a recent video for CBC News, Mi'kmaq lawyer and professor Pam Palmater told Trudeau that "you betrayed us."

It would be difficult to draw much of a different conclusion.

Justin Trudeau participates in a town hall meeting in New Brunswick. Image: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

Repeal ‘Problematic Elements’ of Surveillance Bill C-51

Remember Bill C-51? That controversial “anti-terrorism” legislation that resulted in massive protests, petitions and condemnation from academics?

Well, it’s still very much law.

That includes the powers to arrest people without a warrant if someone "may" commit a terrorist attack, increases data sharing among government departments, grants significant powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and expands the definition of “security” to include anything that undermines “the economic or financial stability of Canada.”

The latter point led especially to fears among environmental activists and Indigenous defenders, given the potential arbitrary use of state power to suppress protesting.

The Liberals unanimously voted for C-51. During the election, they promised to “repeal the problematic elements of Bill C-51, and introduce new legislation that better balances our collective security with our rights and freedoms.” The new legislation would “guarantee that all Canadian Security Intelligence Service warrants respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and “ensure that Canadians are not limited from lawful protests and advocacy.”

Maybe you can guess what happened next.

Trudeau and the Liberals haven’t kept their promise.

The proposed bill to establish an all-party National Security and Intelligence Committee is still only in the report stage. CSIS is under serious fire for a decade-long storage of illegal metadata. Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr was recently slammed for implying that pipeline protesters would face the “rule of law,” which was interpreted by some as a veiled threat to use police and military against protesters in a similar way to the Oka Crisis.

Take Climate Targets Seriously

Credit where it’s due: the Liberals did manage to pull off the Pan-Canadian Framework.

That included national $50/tonne carbon pricing by 2022, regulations to cut methane and HFC emissions, a phase-out of coal-fired power by 2030, new building codes and the "intention to develop a zero emissions vehicle strategy and a Clean Fuels Standard."

But the federal approvals of the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal, Enbridge Line 3 pipeline and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline seriously undermine the already underwhelming federal commitments to cut emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 80 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Sure, commodity prices may never rebound thanks to President Donald Trump’s plan to massively expand domestic oil and gas development. But everything could also change if he decides to start dropping bombs on Iran and takes four million barrels of oil production off the table. Either way, it’s a big gamble.

But one thing is known for sure: if the newly approved projects are indeed constructed, they will result in “carbon lock-in” for decades to come that will make it extremely difficult for Canada to meet its climate targets due to increased political pressures on future governments to avoid introducing legislation that seriously impacts profit-making abilities.

There’s a quiet push by the federal government to use international emissions trading to help it reach its 2030 target. Solid economic arguments accompany this option. However, some fear the required capital outflow associated with the mechanism will make it more difficult for Canada to reach its 2050 target, to say nothing of the lofty goal of phasing out all fossil fuels by 2100 (both of which will require fairly radical transformations in transportation, industry, electricity, agriculture and buildings).

There’s also little evidence for the math behind the government’s plan to reduce a massive 44 megatonnes of emissions reductions (which represents more than half of all the emissions from oilsands extraction and refining in 2015) from “public transit, green infrastructure, technology and innovation and stored carbon.”

The Pembina Institute’s Erin Flanagan kindly put it that “additional policy work is required to close [that gap].”

Trudeau’s got his rhetoric down when it comes to this subject, often referencing the need to “balance” the economy and environment. Frankly, there’s little evidence that his government is taking 2030, 2050 and 2100 climate targets seriously.

Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: 500 Days of Trudeau’s Broken Promises https://t.co/j4yt4xabv5 #cdnpoli #bcpoli @ClimateVoters @dogwoodbc @350Canada pic.twitter.com/o9wQXMrmBX

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 11, 2017

Big-League Investments in Public Transit and Green Infrastructure

It was supposed to be the “largest new infrastructure investment in Canadian history.”

Specifically, the Liberals pledged $125 billion in public transit, climate change mitigation and adaptation projects, social housing and water and wastewater infrastructure. The big problem?

That $125 billion would be invested over the course of a decade, well beyond the four-year mandate the Liberals won in 2015. Between 2016/17 and 2019/20 — you know, the party’s actual mandate — the Liberals only pledged a total of $17 billion. That was broken down into $5.65 billion for each of the three categories: 1) green infrastructure; 2) social infrastructure; and 3) public transit.

It might sound like a lot.

But the infrastructure deficit in Canada is staggeringly large — one estimate pegs it as high as $570 billion — which is the symptom of decades of serious underinvestment by the federal government in its cities. So how have the Liberals lived up to their measly platform pledge?

They didn’t even meet it.

The funding commitment to public transit is $1.1 billion less than what was promised ($3.4 billion over three years, instead of $4.5 billion). Meanwhile, the commitment to green infrastructure is short, with the budget allocating $5 billion over five years (instead of $5.65 billion over four years). It’s only in 2021/22 that investments are predicted to increase to levels promised in 2015/16.

There’s been no explanation for this.

Instead, the government pitched a private infrastructure bank, which will attempt to “leverage” four to five dollars from the private sector for every single dollar invested by the government. The $15 billion for the latter will be “sourced from the announced funding” for infrastructure, so subtract that amount from the original total.

Sure, the Liberal platform did outline the idea of a Canada Infrastructure Bank “to provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects.” But there was no mention of privatizing it.

This fact has resulted in serious concern voiced by some economists given the possibility of privatization doubling the cost of projects over 30 years than if built and operated by the government.

In addition, Finance Minister Bill Morneau has indicated that private investors won’t be interested in investing in smaller municipalities given their desire for high returns. All this led Laurentian University’s Louis-Philippe Rochon to recently dub Trudeau a “privatization czar” and note that he “has gone places even Mr. Harper never dared to go.”

Given the Liberal pledge to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 27 per cent by 2019-20 — and the fact it’s currently predicted to hit almost 32 per cent by that time — it seems doubtful the Liberals will even pretend to meet this promise.

Sunny, sunny ways.

Image: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau enters a town hall meeting. Image: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In 1982, an omnibus bill proposed by the Pierre Trudeau government provoked such indignation in parliamentarians that the official opposition whip refused to show up in the House of Commons.

Back then the custom was for Parliament to ring noisy “division bells” when opposition whips pulled a no-show and in this case they rang loudly — for two whole weeks.

The noise was so unbearable that parliamentarians were supplied, and this is no joke, with earplugs at the door.

While the division bells no longer ring, the passing of the Harper government’s most recent and certainly most contentious omnibus bill, the anti-terrorism bill C-51, has created a tremendous amount of noise.

Yet the federal Conservatives seem to have found that old pile of earplugs.

Dense, Murky C-51 Put Opposition, Media in Impossible Position

Bill C-51 has generated outrage from a broad swath of society.

Former prime ministers, national editorial boards, tech experts, legal scholars, civil society organizations, democracy watchdogs and droves of citizens have opposed the bill, saying it goes too far in its fight against terrorism, ultimately undermining the democratic rights of Canadians.

Part of that outrage can be tied back to the content of the bill, which affects a grab bag of civil liberties — from freedom of expression to the right to protest.

Devon Page, executive director of Ecojustice, says that while he’s encouraged to see so much public engagement with C-51, it was disappointing to see the bill survive a vote in the House of Commons.

“It was disappointing to see the bill be passed and to have the outcome the federal government intended: to make a bill of such a mix of issues that opposition parties both support and oppose that it put opposition parties in an impossible position,” he said.

“Opposition parties were handcuffed in their abilities to understand and engage in the issues and vote accordingly,” Page added.

"These bills are threat to democracy because they don’t allow fulsome debate,” he said. “To parse that out a bit, because they link typically unrelated issues in bulk, their side effect is … they typically short circuit that.”

Page added this federal government has used omnibus bills to avoid full debate in question period. Even where bills address single issues, question period debate still usually falls short of engaging all relevant issues.

But he said, “when you combine issues,” in an omnibus fashion, “the intention is to frustrate debate.” Not only in Parliament, he adds, but for media saddled with complex issues that are difficult to cover.

Laurel Collins, an instructor of social justice studies and doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria, agrees.

“Omnibus bills, like Bill C-51, often make proposed legislation inaccessible to the Canadian public,” she said. “This so-called anti-terror bill had so many broad changes that it’s hard to provide people with a comprehensive yet still accessible critique.”

Collins, who studies social movements and nonviolent activism, has been actively speaking out against the bill at public forums in Victoria, B.C.

She said Canadians were lucky the NDP filibustered the bill, “which bought us more time to inform Canadians about the far-reaching impacts of this bill, and allowed for a few more expert witnesses in the committee hearing.“

“Without this, we may not have seen the dramatic drop in public support for Bill C-51.”

Collins said the Harper government assumed it could get away with passing the bill without much public scrutiny.

“I think it shows their extreme hubris, that even after Canadians overwhelmingly opposed the bill, they still pushed it though.”

Wheels on the Omnibus Go Round and Round

Like other omnibus bills forced through Parliament by the Harper government, Bill C-51 was a complicated wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Called an anti-terrorism bill, opposition parties were faced with the challenge of appearing, unfairly, pro-terrorism if they fought the bill. It’s an old trick: a ‘you’re either with us, or your with the terrorists’ kind of thing.

Page said this has the effect of “embarrassing opposition parties by tying in favourable and unfavourable issues” that make it difficult for them to take a strong stance (this is surely the trap the federal Liberal party fell in to).

The same goes for other major omnibus bills vigorously fought by the opposition.

Omnibus budget Bill C-38 was nicknamed the environmental destruction act by federal Green party leader Elizabeth May because of its sweeping changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Energy Board Act, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and many, many more.

(Seriously, just take a look at all the acts that bill affected. Warning: your hand might get tired from scrolling down the page.)

That bill was amazingly called the “Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act.” Similarly, the cousin omnibus Bill C-45, which eliminated protection for the majority of Canada’s waterways to the benefit of pipeline operators, was called the “Jobs and Growth Act.”

And if that’s not Orwellian enough for you, omnibus Bill C-10, which promised to overhaul Canada’s justice system and fill its prisons, was called the “Safe Streets and Communities Act.” The Canadian Civil Liberties Association called the bill “unwise, unjust and unconstitutional,” a sentiment that was echoed by the John Howard Society, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council on Refugees among many others.

Although these omnibus bills are perhaps the most well-known, there are many more, according to federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

Banned in the U.S., Omnibus Bills a Harper Specialty

“The business of using omnibus legislation to push through things that are unpalatable so they don’t get properly studied and don’t get proper time allocation — this is pure Harper,” May said.

“We’ve had two omnibus budget bills every year — 2012, 2013, and 2014. There were some that were more targeted on the environment than others but none of them were good.”

May said in a way, budget Bill C-38 laid the groundwork for some of the worst implications of bill C-51.

"Back in the spring of 2012, among the many things that C-38 did…one of the less noticed ones was getting rid of the inspector general for CSIS. So there’s nobody reviewing CSIS activity. There’s the Security Intelligence Review Committee,” she said, ”which reviews CSIC activities, but nobody’s playing an oversight role.”

The lack of CSIS oversight has been cause for huge concern considering the expanded powers extended to the spy agency under new rules. This is where the “secret police” criticism comes in.

May said Canadians need to make the passage of C-51 into an election issue.

“We must make it a sufficient election issue so that whoever become prime minister, whatever party forms government, will have to act on this and repeal C-51.”

Beyond that, May said we need to eliminate the use of omnibus legislation in Canada.

“It really has to stop after the election,” she said. “We have to take steps to make sure nobody can do this again.”

Page said many U.S. states have already done so, with California banning bills that include more than one subject.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This weekend thousands of Canadians marched against the Conservative government's proposed anti-terrorism bill C-51. In this episode of DeSmogCAST we take a close look at the proposed legislation and discuss how it relates to the recently-leaked RCMP intelligence report that names pipeline opponents and First Nations "violent anti-petroleum extremists." Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, discusses the significance of the internal intelligence report and Greenpeace's role in its release.

We also take a look at Kinder Morgan's secretive behaviour in the Trans Mountain pipeline review and how anti-terrorism laws meant to protect 'critical infrastructure' like pipelines may benefit oil, gas and pipeline companies unwilling to disclose information to the public.

DeSmogBlog contributor Farron Cousins hosts this episode and is joined by Greenpeace's Keith Stewart, DeSmog Canada's Emma Gilchrist, and yours truly.

See below for articles mentioned in this episode:

LEAKED: Internal RCMP Document Names “Violent Anti-Petroleum Extremists” Threat to Government and Industry

Leaked RCMP Report Fuels Fears Harper’s Anti-Terrorism Bill will Target Enviros, First Nations

More than 100 Legal Experts Urge Parliament to Amend or Kill Anti-Terrorism Bill C-51

National Energy Board Rules Kinder Morgan Can Keep Pipeline Emergency Plans Secret, Weakens Faith in Process

What Kinder Morgan is Keeping Secret About its Trans Mountain Spill Response Plans

Kinder Morgan, NEB Draw Ire for Oil Spill Response Plans Released in Washington State, But Not B.C.

Image Credit: Farhan Umedaly

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

When I asked the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) whether it has files on me or DeSmog Canada, I got a response that's been used as a non-answer by government spokespeople and celebrity publicists for 40-plus years: We can "neither confirm nor deny" the records exist.

The intelligence body doesn't have to disclose such information because it's exempt from Canada’s Access to Information legislation since it relates to “the detecting, preventing or suppressing subversive or hostile activities.”

Hmph. Some part of me was expecting them to simply say "no." While non-denial denial responses like this are pretty par for the course when dealing with intelligence services — the phrase was first conjured up during a clandestine CIA submarine operation in the 1970s — it's disconcerting in light of the federal government’s proposed anti-terrorism bill C-51, which would increase the powers of CSIS and its role in government-sponsored spying.

As others have pointed out, bill C-51 will allow dangerously strong measures to be taken against even perceived terror threats or individuals that pose a threat to Canada’s critical infrastructure, such as pipelines, or the nation’s financial security.

The language in bill C-51 has been roundly criticized for being so broad that it endangers the democratic rights of Canadian citizens and their ability to engage in legitimate dissent. Under the new legislation, CSIS could foreseeably monitor the activities of ordinary Canadians participating in community organizing, climate activism, blockades, strikes or pipeline protests.

As a recently leaked RCMP intelligence report highlights, environmental and First Nation groups are already targeted for surveillance in Canada and are being characterized (some say hyperbolically) as “violent anti-petroleum extremists.”

As an editor at a news outlet that routinely reports on energy and environment issues directly related to "critical infrastructure," I thought it sensible to submit two requests to CSIS through the Access to Information and Privacy Act to see if any records came back.

For the record, I have no particular reason to think CSIS is monitoring either me or DeSmog Canada. To be sure, they have no legitimate reason to. But I find the inability to know whether we've been swept up in the spy agency's wide net concerning, as many other Canadians likely would.

Unfortunately, when it comes to CSIS, Canadians can expect very little transparency, a cause for additional concern when you recall Harper eliminated the position of the CSIS watchdog in 2012. The only overview of CSIS is handled by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), a body comprised of part-time appointees with limited resources that assess CSIS operations after-the-fact.

DeSmog Canada's CSIS Privacy Request for Editor Carol Linnitt by DeSmog Canada

DeSmog Canada's CSIS Access to Information Request by DeSmog Canada

I reached out to Vincent Gogolek, executive director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA), to see what he makes of these responses from CSIS.

"It certainly looks like the way the law is being interpreted there really aren't any 'citizens above suspicion,’” Gogolek said. “Or at least CSIS apparently won't confirm or deny” if such citizens exist.

Gogolek said it’s fair CSIS wouldn’t want to release information relevant to an ongoing investigation through the Access to Information process, but added, “likewise they shouldn't use this as a blanket excuse to refuse to release information."

Access to Information Act Gutted Under Harper 

Reg Whitaker, distinguished research professor emeritus at York University and adjunct professor of political science at the University of Victoria, is a national security expert who has written several books on the topic including The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality.

Whitaker said when it comes to transparency, the Harper government has successfully gutted the Access to Information and Privacy Act over the last several years.

“Their idea is: you let out as little as possible, you make it as difficult and you make it as expensive as you can to make it difficult to use the Act in the first place,” Whitaker said.

“That’s not necessarily related to CSIS or the RCMP or surveillance of ongoing movements,” he conceded. “There’s just a general tendency that they are trying to stop up the flow of information about what they’re doing generally across the board.”

But when it comes to CSIS, Whitaker said, “there’s this extra sensitivity, obviously.”

As the Harper government looks to expand the power of CSIS under the name of “counter-terrorism,” Whitaker said, “we know they are focusing on activist groups and certainly anti-pipeline groups, or more generally groups focused on resource issues and mega projects that have the highest priority in this government.”

“They will always claim that they’re only focusing on the potential for violence, therefore it falls into the category of terrorism. But there’s no way they can carry on the surveillance of potential violent activity of these groups without spying on these groups.”

“They are doing it and they’re very sensitive about trying to make sure there is as little information getting out there as possible,” he said.

But information still has a way of getting to the public, Whitaker added, such as the leaked RCMP intelligence report first published on DeSmog Canada.

Whitaker acknowledges there is no way to know if myself or DeSmog Canada is being monitored by CSIS.

“I don’t know if in your case that what’s happened with your request signifies you’re a target,” he said. “It could well be that you’re not. But they’re going to give you the same answer whether you had been a target that sought their files, or someone who wasn’t but thought they might be.”

RCMP and CSIS Risk Losing Social Licence

And that’s a problem, Whitaker said, arguing the outcome of a surveillance campaign like this will be growing social mistrust.

“The implications are not going to be good for social licence,” he said. “It’s a pretty fuzzy concept, but it’s a phrase that is used a lot these days.”

Whitaker said it is clear pipeline proponents Enbridge and Kinder Morgan have lost their social licence with individuals worried about the environment, First Nations and “generally the population of British Columbia feeling they’re having these juggernauts rammed down their throats.”

In much the same way, the RCMP and CSIS risk the social licence they require to adequately address real security threats.

“With CSIS and the RCMP in fighting terrorism, it’s very important, I think, that they — and in their more lucid moments they’d agree, I’m sure — that they have social licence.”

But with the looming implications of Bill C-51 both CSIS and the RCMP put their social licence at risk.

“What they’re in danger of doing now as bill C-51 goes through and their powers get greatly expanded and the definition of what they’re looking at is being expanded so broadly, well beyond terrorism in fact…they are going to seriously lose that social licence with a much larger proportion of the Canadian population.”

The loss of public support is something “they ought to be very worried about,” Whitaker said, adding it’s unclear “how much they are being pushed by the present government to focus on the quote-unquote anti-petroleum movement, etc. and how much is coming from within CSIS and the RCMP.”

“But certainly pressure has been coming from government.”

Image Credit: Emory Allen via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Legal experts from across Canada are urging all parliamentarians to “ensure that C-51 not be enacted in anything resembling its present form.” They argue, in an open letter published on the National Post, that the federal government’s anti-terrorism bill is a “dangerous piece of legislation” that has not been given due debate. The Harper government decided to cut off a second reading debate of the bill on February 23, after less than three days of discussion.

The authors of the letter note the lack of debate is a “troubling undermining of our parliamentary democracy’s ability to hold majority governments accountable.”

“It is sadly ironic that democratic debate is being curtailed on a bill that vastly expands the scope of covert state activity when that activity will be subject to poor or non-existent democratic oversight or review.”

The full text of the open letter is reproduced below:

Dear Members of Parliament,

Please accept this collective open letter as an expression of the signatories’ deep concern that Bill C-51 (which the government is calling the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015) is a dangerous piece of legislation in terms of its potential impacts on the rule of law, on constitutionally and internationally protected rights, and on the health of Canada’s democracy.

Beyond that, we note with concern that knowledgeable analysts have made cogent arguments not only that Bill C-51 may turn out to be ineffective in countering terrorism by virtue of what is omitted from the bill, but also that Bill C-51 could actually be counter-productive in that it could easily get in the way of effective policing, intelligence-gathering and prosecutorial activity. In this respect, we wish it to be clear that we are neither “extremists” (as the Prime Minister has recently labelled the Official Opposition for its resistance to Bill C-51) nor dismissive of the real threats to Canadians’ security that government and Parliament have a duty to protect. Rather, we believe that terrorism must be countered in ways that are fully consistent with core values (that include liberty, non-discrimination, and the rule of law), that are evidence-based, and that are likely to be effective.

The scope and implications of Bill C-51 are so extensive that it cannot be, and is not, the purpose of this letter to itemize every problem with the bill. Rather, the discussion below is an effort to reflect a basic consensus over some (and only some) of the leading concerns, all the while noting that any given signatory’s degree of concern may vary item by item. Also, the absence of a given matter from this letter is not meant to suggest it is not also a concern.

We are grateful for the service to informed public debate and public education provided, since Bill C-51 was tabled, by two highly respected law professors — Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach of the University of Toronto — who, combined, have great expertise in national security law at the intersection of constitutional law, criminal law, international law and other sub-disciplines. What follows — and we limit ourselves to five points — owes much to the background papers they have penned, as well as to insights from editorials in the media and speeches in the House of Commons.

Accordingly, we urge all MPs to vote against Bill C-51 for the following reasons:

1. Bill C-51 enacts a new security-intelligence information-sharing statute of vast scope with no enhanced protections for privacy and from abuse. The law defines “activities that undermine the security of Canada” in such an exceptionally broad way that “terrorism” is simply one example of nine examples, and only “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression” is excluded. Apart from all the civil-disobedience activities and illegal protests or strikes that will be covered (e.g. in relation to “interference with critical infrastructure”), this deep and broad intrusion into privacy is made worse by the fact there are no corresponding oversight or review mechanisms adequate to this expansion of the state’s new levels of information awareness. Concerns have already been expressed by the Privacy Commissioner, an Officer of Parliament, who has insufficient powers and resources to even begin to oversee, let alone correct abuses within, this expanded information-sharing system. And there is virtually nothing in the bill that recognizes any lessons learned from what can happen when information-sharing ends up in the wrong hands, as when the RCMP supplied poor information to US authorities that in turn led to the rendition of Maher Arar to Syria and his subsequent torture based on that – and further – information coming from Canada.  
2. Bill C-51 enacts a new “terrorism” offence that makes it criminal to advocate or encourage “terrorism offences in general” where one does this being reckless as to whether the communication “may” contribute to someone else deciding to commit another terrorism offence. It is overbroad, unnecessary in view of current criminal law, and potentially counter-productive. Keep in mind how numerous and broad are the existing terrorism offences in the Criminal Code, some of which go beyond what the ordinary citizen imagines when they think of terrorism and all of which already include the general criminal-law prohibitions on counselling, aiding and abetting, conspiring, and so on: advocacy or encouragement of any of these “in general” could attract prosecution under the new C-51 offence. Note as well that gestures and physical symbols appear to be caught, and not just verbal or written exhortations. In media commentary and reports, there have been many examples of what could be caught, including in some contexts advocacy of armed revolution and rebellion in other countries (e.g. if C-51 had been the law when thousands of Canadians advocated support for Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress in its efforts to overthrow apartheid by force of arms, when that was still part of the ANC’s strategy). So, the chill for freedom of speech is real. In addition, in a context in which direct incitement to terrorist acts (versus of “terrorism offences in general”) is already a crime in Canada, this vague and sweeping extension of the criminal law seems unjustified in terms of necessity – and indeed, the Prime Minister during Question Period has been unable or unwilling to give examples of what conduct he would want to see criminalized now that is not already prohibited by the Criminal Code. But, perhaps most worrying is how counter-productive this new crime could be. De-radicalization outreach programs could be negatively affected. Much anti-radicalization work depends on frank engagement of authorities like the RCMP, alongside communities and parents, with youth who hold extreme views, including some views that, if expressed (including in private), would contravene this new prohibition. Such outreach may require “extreme dialogue” in order to work through the misconceptions, anger, hatred and other emotions that lead to radicalization. If C-51 is enacted, these efforts could find themselves stymied as local communities and parents receive advice that, if youth participating in these efforts say what they think, they could be charged with a crime. As a result, the RCMP may cease to be invited in at all, or, if they are, engagement will be fettered by restraint that defeats the underlying methods of the programme. And the counter-productive impact could go further. The Prime Minister himself confirmed he would want the new law used against young people sitting in front of computers in their family basements, youth who can express extreme views on social-media platforms. Why is criminalization counter-productive here? As a National Post editorial pointed out, the result of Bill C-51 could easily be that one of the best sources of intelligence for possible future threats — public social-media platforms — could dry up; that is, extreme views will go silent because of fears of being charged. This undercuts the usefulness of these platforms for monitoring and intelligence that lead to knowing not only who warrants further investigative attention but also whether early intervention in the form of de-radicalization outreach efforts are called for.  
3. Bill C-51 would allow CSIS to move from its central current function — information-gathering and associated surveillance with respect to a broad area of “national security” matters — to being a totally different kind of agency that now may actively intervene to disrupt activities by a potentially infinite range of unspecified measures, as long as a given measure falls shy of causing bodily harm, infringements on sexual integrity or obstructions of justice. CSIS agents can do this activity both inside and outside Canada, and they can call on any entity or person to assist them. There are a number of reasons to be apprehensive about this change of role. One only has to recall that the CSIS Act defines “threats to the security of Canada” so broadly that CSIS already considers various environmental and Aboriginal movements to be subject to their scrutiny; that is to say, this new disruption power goes well beyond anything that has any connection at all to “terrorism” precisely because CSIS’s mandate in the CSIS Act goes far beyond a concern only with terrorism. However, those general concerns expressed, we will now limit ourselves to the following serious problem: how Bill C-51 seems to display a complete misunderstanding of the role of judges in our legal system and constitutional order. Under C-51, judges may now be asked to give warrants to allow for disruption measures that contravene Canadian law or the Charter, a role that goes well beyond the current contexts in which judges now give warrants (e.g. surveillance warrants and search and seizure warrants) where a judge’s role is to ensure that these investigative measures are “reasonable” so as not to infringe section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights. What C-51 now does is turn judges into agents of the executive branch (here, CSIS) to pre-authorize violations of Canadian law and, even, to pre-authorize infringements of almost any Charter right as long as the limits in C-51 – bodily harm, sexual integrity and obstruction of justice – are respected. This completely subverts the normal role of judges, which is to assess whether measures prescribed by law or taken in accordance with discretion granted by statute infringed rights — and, if they did, whether the Charter has been violated because the infringement cannot be justified under the Charter’s section 1 limitation clause. Now, a judge can be asked (indeed, required) to say yes in advance to measures that could range from wiping a target’s computer clear of all information to fabricating materials (or playing agent-provocateur roles) that discredit a target in ways that cause others no longer to trust him, her or it: and these examples are possibly at the mild end of what CSIS may well judge as useful “disruption” measures to employ. It is also crucial to note that CSIS is authorized to engage in any measures it chooses if it concludes that the measure would not be “contrary” to any Canadian law or would not “contravene” the Charter. Thus, it is CSIS that decides whether to even go to a judge. There is reason to be worried about how unregulated (even by courts) this new CSIS disruption power would be, given the evidence that CSIS has in the past hidden information from its review body, SIRC, and given that a civil-servant whistleblower has revealed that, in a parallel context, Ministers of Justice in the Harper government have directed Department of Justice lawyers to conclude that the Minister can certify under the Department of Justice Act that a law is in compliance with the Charter if there is a mere 5% chance a court would uphold the law if it was challenged in court. Finally, it is crucial to add that these warrant proceedings will take place in secret, with only the government side represented, and no prospect of appeal. Warrants will not be disclosed to the target and, unlike police investigations, CSIS activities do not culminate in court proceedings where state conduct is then reviewed.  
4. We now draw attention to effectiveness by noting a key omission from C-51. As the Official Opposition noted in its “reasoned amendment” when it moved that C-51 not be given Second Reading, Bill C-51 does not include “the type of concrete, effective measures that have been proven to work, such as working with communities ‎on measures to counter radicalization of youth – may even undermine outreach.” This speaks for itself, and we will not elaborate beyond saying that, within a common commitment to countering terrorism, effective measures of the sort referenced in the reasoned amendment not only are necessary but also must be vigorously pursued and well-funded. The government made no parallel announcements alongside Bill C-51 that would suggest that these sort of measures are anywhere near the priority they need to be.  
5. Finally, the defects noted in points 1, 2 and 3 (information-sharing, criminalizing expression, and disruption) are magnified by the overarching lack of anything approaching adequate oversight and review functions, at the same time as existing accountability mechanisms have been weakened and in some cases eliminated in recent years. Quite simply, Bill C-51 continues the government’s resolute refusal to respond to 10 years of calls for adequate and integrated review of intelligence and related security-state activities, which was first (and perhaps best) articulated by Justice O’Connor in a dedicated volume in his report on what had happened to Maher Arar. Only last week, former prime ministers and premiers wrote an open letter saying that a bill like C-51 cannot be enacted absent the kind of accountability processes and mechanisms that will catch and hopefully prevent abuses of the wide new powers CSIS and a large number of partner agencies will now have (note that CSIS can enlist other agencies and any person in its disruption activities and the information-sharing law concerns over a dozen other government agencies besides CSIS). Even if one judged all the new CSIS powers in C-51 to be justified, they must not be enacted without proper accountability. Here, we must note that the government’s record has gone in the opposite direction from enhanced accountability. Taking CSIS alone, the present government weakened CSIS’s accountability by getting rid of an oversight actor, the Inspector General, whose job was to keep the Minister of Public Security on top of CSIS activity in real time. It transferred this function to CSIS’s review body, the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), which does not have anything close to the personnel or resources to carry this function out – given it does not have sufficient staff and resources to carry out its existing mandate to ensure CSIS acts within the law. Beyond staff, we note that SIRC is a body that has for some time not been at a full complement of members, even as the government continues to make no apology for having once appointed as SIRC’s Chair someone with no qualifications (and it turns out, no character) to be on SIRC let alone to be its chair (Arthur Porter). And, as revealed in a recent CBC investigation, the government has simply not been straight with Canadians when it constantly says SIRC is a robust and well-resourced body: its budget is a mere $3 million, which has flat-lined since 2005 when the budget was $2.9 million, even as its staff has been cut from 20 in 2005 to 17 now. Without an integrated security-intelligence review mechanism, which should also include some form of Parliamentary oversight and/or review, and with especially SIRC (with jurisdiction only over CSIS) not a fully effective body, we are of the view that no MP should in good conscience be voting for Bill C-51.

Above, we have limited ourselves to five central concerns, but it is important to reiterate that some or all of the signatories have serious concerns about a good number of other aspects of C-51 – and/or about detailed aspects of some of the concerns that were generally expressed in the above five points. The following are some (but only some) of those concerns, in point form. They are included by way of saying that signatories believe these all need to be looked at closely and rigorously during House of Commons committee study of C-51, now that it has passed Second Reading:

• C-51 radically lowers the threshold for preventive detention and imposition of recognizance with conditions on individuals. Only three years ago, Parliament enacted a law saying this detention/conditions regime can operate if there is a reasonable basis for believing a person “will” commit a terrorist offence. Now, that threshold has been lowered to “may.” There has been a failure of the government to explain why exactly the existing power has not been adequate. In light of the huge potential for abuse of such a low threshold, including through wide-scale use (recalling the mass arrests at the time of the War Measures Act in Quebec), Canadians and parliamentarians need to know why extraordinary new powers are needed, especially when the current ones were enacted in the context of ongoing threats by Al-Qaeda to carry out attacks in Canada that seem no less serious than the ones currently being threatened by entities like ISIS and Al-Shabab.  
• C-51 expands the no-fly list regime. It seems to have simply replicated the US no-fly list rules, the operation of which has been widely criticized in terms of its breadth and impacts on innocent people. Is this the right regime for Canada?  
• C-51’s new disruption warrants now allows CSIS to impinge on the RCMP’s law enforcement role, bringing back turf wars that were eliminated when intelligence and law enforcement were separated in the wake of the RCMP’s abusive disruption activities of the late 1960s and early 1970s. But, even more important than turf wars is the potential for CSIS behaviour in the form of disruptive measures to undermine both the investigation and the prosecution of criminal cases by interfering with evidentiary trail, contaminating evidence, and so on.  
• C-51, in tandem with C-44, permits CSIS to engage not just in surveillance and information-gathering abroad, but also in disruption. There are many questions about how this will work. The danger of lawlessness seems to be significantly greater for CSIS activities abroad, in that CSIS only needs to seek approval for disruption under C-51 where Canadian, not foreign, law could be breached or where the Charter could be contravened (with Canadian law on the application of the Charter outside Canada being quite unclear at the moment). And there is no duty for CSIS to coordinate with or seek approval from the Department of Foreign Affairs, such that the chances of interference with the conduct of Canada’s foreign affairs cannot be discounted. Nor can we ignore the likely tendency for disruption measures abroad to be more threatening to individuals’ rights than in Canada: for example, Parliament needs to know whether CSIS agents abroad can engage in detention and rendition to agencies of other countries under the new C-51 regime.

We end by observing that this letter is dated Feb. 23, 2015, which is also the day when the government has chosen to cut off Second Reading debate on Bill C-51 after having allocated a mere three days (in reality, only portions of each of those days) to debate. In light of the sweeping scope and great importance of this bill, we believe that circumventing the ability of MPs to dissect the bill, and their responsibility to convey their concerns to Canadians at large before a Second Reading vote, is a troubling undermining of our Parliamentary democracy’s capacity to hold majority governments accountable. It is sadly ironic that democratic debate is being curtailed on a bill that vastly expands the scope of covert state activity when that activity will be subject to poor or even non-existent democratic oversight or review.

In conclusion, we urge all Parliamentarians to ensure that C-51 not be enacted in anything resembling its present form.

Yours sincerely,

Jennie Abell, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Amir Attaran, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law , University of Ottawa

Natasha Bakht, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Clayton Bangsund, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Margaret Beare, Professor of Law and Sociology, York University

Faisal Bhabha, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Jennifer Bond, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Suzanne Bouclin, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Civil Law, University of Ottawa

Susan Boyd, Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Sarah Buhler, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Karen Busby, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, and Director, Centre for Human Rights Research

Michael Byers, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia

Angela Cameron, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Pascale Chapdelaine, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Larry Chartrand, Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Allison Christians, H. Heward Stikeman Chair in Tax Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University

Brenda Cossman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Stephen Coughlan, Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University

François Crépeau, Hans & Tamar Openheimer Professor in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University

Hugo Cyr, Professor of Law, University of Quebec in Montreal

Jennifer E. Dalton, Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University

Maneesha Deckha, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria

Julie Desrosiers, Professor, Faculty of Law, University Laval

Peter Dietsch, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Montreal

Stacy Douglas, Assistant Professor, Department of Law & Legal Studies, Carleton University

Susan Drummond, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Isabelle Duplessis, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal

Stuart Farson, Adjunct Professor, Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Gerry Ferguson, Distinguished Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria

Leonard, Findlay, Professor, College of Arts and Science, University of Saskatchewan, and Director, Humanities Research Unit

Colleen Flood, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa; Research Chair in Health Law & Policy

Fabien Gélinas, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University

Daphne Gilbert, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Jassmine Girgis, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary

Isabel Grant, Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Marie Annik Grégoire, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal

Sakej Henderson, Professor, University of Saskatchewan, Research Director, Native Law Centre of Canada

Gleider I. Hernández, Senior Lecturer in Public International Law, Durham Law School

Steve Hewitt, Senior Lecturer, Department of History, University of Birmingham

Louis-Philippe Hodgson, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, York University

Felix Hoehn, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Jula Hughes, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick

Allan Hutchinson, Distinguished Research Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Shin Imai, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Martha Jackman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Juliet Johnson, Associate Professor, Political Science, McGill University

Rebecca Johnson, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria

Jasminka Kalajdzic, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Charis Kamphuis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University

John Keyes, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Muharem Kianieff, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Jeff King, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Laws, University College London

Jennifer Koshan, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary

François J. Larocque, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Fannie Lafontaine, Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair on International Criminal Justice and Human Rights, University Laval

Louis-Philippe Lampron, Professor, Faculty of Law, Laval University

Nicole LaViolette, Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Jean Leclair, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal

Ed Levy, Retired Professor of Philosophy, University of British Columbia

Brian Lewis, Professor of History, McGill University

Jamie Liew, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Catherine Lu, Associate Professor, Political Science, McGill University

Audrey Macklin, Professor of Law and Chair in Human Rights Law, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Alice MacLachlan, Associate Professor, Philosophy, York University

Warren Magnusson, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Victoria

Kathleen Mahoney, Professor of Law, University of Calgary; Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada

Marie Manikis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University

John Manwaring, Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Michael Marin, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Graham Mayeda, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Sheila McIntyre, Professor Emerita, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Michael M’Gonigle, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria

Cynthia Milton, Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Montreal

Richard Moon, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Mary Jane Mossman, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Claire Mummé, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Roxanne Mykitiuk, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Pierre Noreau, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal

Darren O’Toole, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Charles-Maxime Panaccio, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Steven Penney, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta

Denise Reaume, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Philip Resnick, Professor Emeritus, Political Science, University of British Columbia

Darryl Robinson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University

David Robitaille, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Ottawa and trustee at the Quebec Centre for Environmental Law

Sanda Rodgers, Professor Emerita, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Bruce Ryder, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and Academic Director, Anti-Discrimination Intensive Program

Hengameh Saberi, Assistant Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Calvin Sandborn, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, Legal Director, UVic Environmental Law Centre

Steven Savit, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia

Jennifer Schulz, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba

Dayna Scott. Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and Graduate Program Director

Noel Semple, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Martha Shaffer, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Elizabeth Sheehy, Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

James Sheptycki, Professor of Criminology, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University

James Stewart, Assistant Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Donald Stuart, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University

Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Civil Law, University of Ottawa, and Vice-Dean, Research and Communications

François Tanguay-Renaud, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and Director, Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security

David Tanovich, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Christine Tappolet, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Montreal

Saul Templeton, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary

Kimberley N. Trapp, Senior Lecturer in International Law, Faculty of Laws, University College London

Gus Van Harten, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Lucinda Vandervort, Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Wilfrid Waluchow, Professor, Senator William McMaster Chair in Constitutional Studies, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University

Christopher Waters, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Wesley Pue, Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Reg Whitaker, Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus, York University, and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

David Wiseman, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Stepan Wood, Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.